Under the umbrella of 'one country, two systems', Hong Kong is promised a high degree of autonomy. But recent moves, including the establishment of a task- force for constitutional development headed by Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, convey the message that 'two systems' refers to the economies, not the political systems.
Are we being told that 'one country, two systems' is actually a very narrowly defined term?
The taskforce is formed mainly for the purpose of consulting the central government on the development of democracy in Hong Kong. And Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa says Chinese leaders want to take a role in the constitutional development of Hong Kong.
So, henceforth, the Tung administration recognises what it sees as the political reality that the opinions of the leaders of China - the political patron of Hong Kong - should be given priority over democratisation, and this position echoes with the taskforce.
There is a view that this marks the beginning of China's intervention in the affairs of its special administrative region and the dying of 'one country, two systems'. It is at least a strong challenge to that concept because if 'two systems' also embraces political arrangements, why are Hong Kong people's voices not listened to first on constitutional development?
Why doesn't the central government leave this matter to Hong Kong and play no role in it, especially when the election of Taiwan's president is approaching?
